DALEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case has been heard through video conferencing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 30.4.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2-The Additional Chief Secretary Haryana, Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare Department and order dated 13.6.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3-Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board with further prayer to direct the respondents to refund the amount claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that Booth No.142 in extension New Grain Market and New Subzi Mandi, Pundri, District Kaithal was allotted to the petitioner in an open auction, vide allotment order No.415 dated 19.5.2008 (Annexure P-1). The price of the booth was '10,70,000/-. Out of which 25% was paid as allotment price by the petitioner. Balance 75% of the cost of the booth was to be paid in six half yearly installments. After the allotment, the petitioner approached respondent No.4-Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Pundri for the approval of the plan. After waiting for a reasonable long time, the petitioner started raising construction at the spot including basement, after issuance of notification dated 17.4.2009 (Annexure P-3). In July, 2016, respondent No.4 served notice dated 4.7.2016 (Annexure P-2) directing the petitioner to pay sixth and last installment worth '2,11,050/- and basement charges of '1,60,800/-. The petitioner is not liable to pay the basement charges at the rate of 15% of the allotment price, as has been demanded by respondent No.4. The possession of the site was given to the petitioner after the issuance of notification (Annexure P-3) issued by the Agriculture Department, Haryana. As per the said notification whoever intends to construct basement could do so by paying additional charges at the rate of 10% of the allotment price. The petitioner being aggrieved by demand notice (Annexure P-2), filed an appeal (Annexure P-4) with a plea that as per notification (Annexure P-3) he was liable only to pay additional charges at the rate of 10% of the allotment price. However the appeal was dismissed by respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 13.6.2018 (Annexure P-5). Even the revision petition filed by the petition was also dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.4.2019 (Annexure P-7). Both the impugned orders are illegal being passed in violation of notification (Annexure P-3).